Bike Easy: Bicycle Share Feasibility Study, New Orleans

University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO

UNOTI Publications UNO Transportation Institute

5-2012

UNO Transportation Institute

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/unoti_pubs

Part of the Transportation Commons

Recommended Citation UNO Transportation Institute, "Bike Easy: Bicycle Share Feasibility Study, New Orleans" (2012). UNOTI Publications. Paper 14. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/unoti_pubs/14

This Study is brought to you for free and open access by the UNO Transportation Institute at ScholarWorks@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNOTI Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS

MAY 2012

A BIKE EASY PROJECT

Jamie Wine, Executive Director Bike Easy

SPONSORED BY

WITH SUPPORT FROM

New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau

New Orleans Tourism Marketing Corporation

Downtown Development District

Harrahs Foundation BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Bicycle share is a network of bicycles and automated kiosks that allows users to make short trips (1-3 miles) quickly, conveniently and affordably. Bicycle share is a component of a strong transportation network, potentially moving 100,000 people or more per year at relatively low cost. A small scale Bicycle Share system (e.g. Phase 1: 200 bicycles, 20 kiosks at about $1.5 million) would have a profound impact on improving New Orleans’ transportation network.

The simple act of getting more people on bikes benefi ts public health, reduces motor vehicle traffi c congestion, and improves access to economic opportunity. A bicycle share system in New Orleans achieves these goals and more, putting the city on the map as a progressive place to live and visit. New Orleans is already a national leader for bicycling and walking, ranking among the top 10 cities in the US for commuting and is designated a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists. A bicycle share system would solidify New Orleans as a national leader for these quality of life measures.

Bicycle share is simple to implement. Over 100 cities in Europe and 21 cities in the United States have implemented bicycle share systems. This experience elsewhere has produced a winning model for implementation. Bike Easy seeks to be the “convening entity” in our recommendations below. This report recommends New Orleans take the following steps to bring bicycle share to the city:

1. Create the Bike Share Implementation Taskforce, with representation from key stakeholders, to oversee the convening entity as it develops and executes the implementation plan. 2. Raise funds (approximately $40,000) and hire a staff person to head the Bike Share Implementation Taskforce. 3. Develop an implementation plan that includes strategies to: • Secure capital and rolling stock funding. • Build relationships with municipal agencies and transit authorities, gaining offi cial support through tools such as a memorandum of understanding, city council action (an ordinance or resolution), and/or contract. • Secure sponsorship commitments from private and public funders. • Develop a request for proposals (RFP) to fi nd an experienced operator. • Convene a selection committee of the Bike Share Implementation Taskforce and municipal stakeholders (e.g. Regional Planning Com- mission, Department of Public Works, Mayor’s Offi ce and City Council) to review RFP responses. • Issue the RFP and select a winning candidate 4. Convening entity implements the plan. 5. Conduct outreach to the community and elected offi cials such as a “Demo Day” at City Hall where operators can show off their equipment. 6. Identify a funding recipient for capital and rolling stock costs – a municipal authority, nonprofi t or municipality. These could be the City of New Orleans, the Regional Transit Authority, the Regional Planning Commission, Bike Easy or other nonprofi t. 7. Convene an entity or municipal agency to issue the operator contract. 8. Issue RFP to bring in an expert operator.

We believe that New Orleans is ideally suited for bicycle share. By pursuing the above recommendations, launching Phase 1 of a bicycle share system in 12 months or less is a not unreasonable. Upon the success of Phase 1, future expansion could include sponsored kiosks or another capital campaign to expand into additional neighborhoods. We look forward to advising any interested parties as this process goes forward.

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was truly a collaborative effort. In-depth telephone interviews with bicycle share implementers gave us an up-to-date look at successful programs in the US. Thank you for the time and input in crafting this report from operators and implementers Tyler Reeder, Jessica Robertson, P.J. Lynch, and Jean Crowther. Members of the Sustainable Transportation Advisory Commit- tee (STAC) were detail oriented reviewers adding context for New Orleans. Succinct and poignant draft review came from STAC members Dan Jatres, Ellen Soll, Jim Amdal and Jason Tudor. Thanks for keeping me on track.

Technical support from Tara Tolford and the project’s champion, Dr. John Renne at the University of New Orleans Transportation Institute was invaluable; they catalyzed the process and gave the report purpose. Thank you to Max Meltzer for research as an intern at Bike Easy and to Max Williamson for reviewing early drafts and helping craft the vision of the document. Core champions at City Hall included Councilmember Kristin Gisleson-Palmer, Trevor Theunissen and Nicole Webre. While we had help from many sources, the author takes full responsibility for all errors or omissions.

Without diverse and solid fi nancial support from the community none of this would be possible. Special thanks to our key supporters at the Merritt C. Becker Jr. University of New Orleans Transportation Institute and matching support from the New Or- leans Convention and Visitors Bureau, New Orleans Downtown Development District, New Orleans Tourism Marketing Board and Harrah’s Foundation – we know you want a bicycle share, with your support we will get there sooner rather than later.

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction 1 New Orleans Bicycling Conditions Bicycle Infrastructure Types of Riders 5 Benefits of Bicycle Share Transportation System Resilience Public Health Economic Impact Fiscal Impact 7 Case Studies Minneapolis - Nice Ride Minnesota (Nonprofit Operator) Boston - New Balance Hubway (ALTA/Bixi) Miami Beach – (DecoBike) Washington DC - Capital Bikeshare (ALTA) 10 Considerations for Bike Share in New Orleans Population of New Orleans Model Systems – Who will manage the program? Advertising Contract (For-Profit Advertising Firm) Bicycle Share Concessionaires (Operator Granted Public Space) Municipality Contracted (Franchisee Pays to Use Public Space) 12 Logistics: Fleet, Kiosks and Theft Reduction Special Events – Modular Systems Safety and Helmets City Liability and User Risk Theft Protection User Fees Advertising Revenue Phasing 15 Implementation Recommendations 17 Appendix – Bicycle Share Funding Opportunities 19 Works Cited

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS INTRODUCTION and then adopted this plan in August 2010.1

A Bicycle Share system is a network of bicycles and kiosks that There are 14 chapters to the plan, and currently it is being ap- residents, tourists and students can unlock and ride for a short plied to a new Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. It has “the time, then return to any station. Users provide a credit card force of law” to ensure public expenditures, land use and capi- and can purchase long-term or short-term usage for varying tal improvements reflect the Master Plan. rates that are competitive with a mass transit fare system. Chapter 11 includes a transportation element to address re- Bicycle Share has been around for over 4 decades, but not until building road and vehicle infrastructure, and specifically re- 2007 did the technology exist to create a convenient and cost- quires integration of several elements that will be crucial to effective system that can track usage, bike location and kiosk a successful bicycle share program. These include goals 3, 4 status remotely. These innovations increased usage, reduced and 5 which address on-street bicycling and walking, transit theft and vandalism and caused an explosion of bicycle share improvements and enhanced inter-city connections. systems. The economic element of the Master Plan is also relevant to These, so-called, “third-generation” bicycle share systems are launching a bicycle share program. Chapter 9 of the plan fo- in operation worldwide in at least 140 bicycle share systems cuses on fostering emerging industries, preserving and en- globally, with 100 systems in Europe and over 21 city-based hancing the tourism industry, encouraging entrepreneurs and systems in the US. Smaller systems are operated at several revitalizing downtown as a 24-hour place to be as an economic college campuses in the US. driver: all are benefited by the launch of a bicycle share program.

Bicycle Share is not only in line with the New Orleans 2030 Plan, such a program would act as a catalyst to achieve many of the goals in the plan at a lower cost than many alternatives.

Bicycle Infrastructure

Between 2005 and 2012, New Orleans has seen a boom of bicycle infrastructure as the City has expanded bicycle routes from 11 miles of mostly off-street facilities to over 50 miles of mostly on-street facilities.2 Additionally, New Orleans has seen a dramatic increase in bike racks and end-of-trip facilities. Over 150 “Where ‘Ya Rack?” bicycle racks have been in- The purpose of this Bicycle Share Feasibility Study is to ana- stalled by the Young Leadership Council in public places3, and lyze how bicycle share has been started in similar US cities, the City has installed dozens of bicycle racks through a hand- identify options for bringing bicycle share to New Orleans and ful of capital projects, including Canal Street and Oak Street. provide policy recommendations to encourage adoption of such a system in New Orleans.

NEW ORLEANS BICYCLING CONDITIONS

Plan for the 21st Century: New Orleans 2030 In June 2008, the City of New Orleans began setting a vision for the long-term to make New Orleans better than it was before Hurricane Katrina. The Plan for the 21st Century: New Orleans 2030, commonly referred to as the “Master Plan,” is a way of communicating New Orleanians’ shared vision for the city. Through a public engagement process, the City drafted

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 1 FIGURE – BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE IN NEW ORLEANS MAY 2012

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 2 Bronze Bicycle Friendly City ily move along and across our rights-of-way. This ordinance From 2008 to 2010 New Orleans was recognized as an “Hon- directs the administration to create internal policies that orable Mention” by the Bicycle Friendly Community Program. require engineers consider different design treatments (e.g. In 2011, New Orleans finally achieved Bronze Status as a Bi- curb ramps, bike lanes, sidewalks and bus stops) when resur- cycle Friendly Community.4 facing or rebuilding roads. This ordinance institutionalizes the work the Department of Public Works and City Planning “The Bicycle Friendly Community Program provides Commission have been doing (such as installing curb ramps incentives, hands-on assistance, and award recognition and bike lanes) since Hurricane Katrina, and ensures these for communities that actively support bicycling. A Bicycle design methods continue as institutional processes instead of Friendly Community welcomes cyclists by providing safe ac- ad hoc decision making. The ordinance was strengthened by commodation for cycling and encouraging people to bike for amendments to include coordinating below-ground work – to transportation and recreation.” avoid digging up new streets to repair or replace underground – League of American Bicyclists5 utilities.6

According to the League of American Bicyclists, which runs With a Complete Streets Program in place, new bicycle and the Bicycle Friendly Community Program, encouraging bicy- pedestrian facilities will continue to be developed in New Or- cling improves a myriad of public issues including: leans that will support the users of a bicycle share program.

• Public health Bicycling Demand and Crash Rates • Reduced traffic demands As bicycle infrastructure has increased, so has ridership. In • Improved air quality 2000, New Orleans was 13th in the country for the share of bi- • Greater physical fitness cycle commuters to work. By 2009, New Orleans was ranked • Higher quality of life 6th in the nation.7 This increase in bicycle riding is anticipated • Increased property values to reduce crash rates as a result of “safety in numbers”.8 In • Business growth New York,9 as daily ridership has more than doubled from • Increased tourism 80,000 to 180,000, the annual casualty rate (injuries and • More transportation choices fatalities) has fallen from 5,000 per year to under 3,000 per year– a 40% reduction. New Orleans’ Bicycle Friendly Status should be leveraged to bring bicycling to more people and a bicycle share program Safer streets will encourage more bicycle share riders and in would support that objective. turn their numbers will make the streets even safer for all bicyclists. Bicycle share program participants in Washington, D.C., London, and Paris were all less likely to be involved in crashes than cyclists riding their own bicycle. For example, Washington, D.C.’s Capital Bikeshare users were about half as likely to get in a crash as those that rode their own bike.12 This phenomenon actually reduces crash rates and shows that bicycle share riding is safer than riding your own bike.

While there is no evidence yet, it is hypothesized13 that bicycle share users might be less experienced than those who ride their own bike, making them more cautious and avoid mix- ing with traffic, ride slower and have fewer serious collisions. Another researcher suggested that people that have avoided bicycling until bike share made it easier are “less tolerant of New Orleans Complete Streets Program risk” and are “more cautious people.” While there is no clear In December 2011, the New Orleans City Council passed a evidence that bicycle share riders are safer than those who Complete Streets Program that directs various administra- own their bike, it is clear that with more bicycles on the road, tion agencies to work together to ensure that all users can eas- all riders are safer.

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 3 While many American recreational riders are male, bicycle In New Orleans, there has been a dramatic increase in riders share systems have a better balance of users among the gen- in recent years. In fact, University of New Orleans Transpor- ders and also usage in pairs or groups.22 An increase in female tation Institute noted in their study, “Active Transportation riders is an indicator that streets are perceived as safer. Gen- Measurement and Benchmarking Development: New Orleans der disparity exists even in cities that are national leaders in Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Report, 2010-2011” that at 17 bicycle safety like Portland (31% female ridership) and Min- locations around New Orleans, overall daily bicycle counts in- neapolis (28% female ridership). In New Orleans, the PBRI creased 20% in 2011 from 2010.10 study20 saw a 20% daily increase in female ridership from 2010 to 2011, but remains low in New Orleans at twenty-eight Bicycle share systems increase overall number of riders. After percent (28%). These data indicate there is still room to in- bicycle share systems were installed total ridership increased crease ridership. Bicycle share could be a tool to get women in both Barcelona (234%) and Paris (250%).11 More bicycle on bicycles more often, increasing both perceived and actual riders on the road made riding safer in Australia, Denmark safety for all cyclists. and California. Even bicycle safety education did not reduce crashes as much as getting more bicycles on the road.12 Bicycle FIGURE – NEW ORLEANS BICYCLE RIDERSHIP BY GENDER share will increase the overall number of riders, and therefore make bicycling in New Orleans safer for all bicycle riders.

Types of Riders 28%

Nationally, 3/4 of riders are male, non-Hispanic Caucasians.13 In New Orleans, we have a large base of riders of different types. These include commuters, including people who ride 72% out of necessity, as well as recreational cyclists and casual riders. Two recent bicycle counts by University of New Orleans Transportation Institute14 and the Prevention Research Cen- ter at Tulane University15 determined that New Orleans is a regional leader in active transportation. While cyclists span the gamut in gender, age, occupation and time of day overall FEMALE MALE number of riders is increasing year over year. New Orleanians love riding their bicycles and bicycle share is one way to get Low Income Riders more people on bicycles more often. Bicycle share is part of the transportation system of a city, much like a mass transit system. In New Orleans, over 60% Race of bicycle commuters make less than $35,000 per year, indi- In 2012, graduate students at Virginia Tech released an analy- cating that many ride out of necessity. Many riders in the city sis of the Capital Bikeshare users and operation of the pro- are utilizing their bicycle as a tool to move about the city since gram.16 Particularly relevant to New Orleans is the low us- they have no other means available.10 Access to a new bicycle age of the system by African Americans in Washington, D.C. share system can provide low-income users an opportunity to While accounting for 50% of Washington, D.C.’s residents, extend transit trips, and make more effi cient trips without a only 5% of Capital Bikeshare riders were African American. vehicle to economically signifi cant destinations such as shop- Nationally, African Americans make up 10% of recreational ping, work and school. Tools to lower barriers for these riders riders.17 As a large portion of riders in New Orleans, target- include a payment plan for annual membership, phone and in- ing this population for outreach is critical to program success. person registration options, and promoting cash-to-card bank A study is underway in Minneapolis to determine strategies services for bike check-out. for increasing a more racially diverse ridership. This study should be considered in implementation of a New Orleans bi- A thorough economic analysis of bicycle share users has not cycle share system. been done, but a study from Virginia Tech14 noted that many users were tourists and that additional outreach to low-in- Gender come users could increase usage by this group. Most users in Female riders are a key indicator of bicycle safety in a city.18

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 4 the survey (81%) had college or advanced degrees. Alta’s Com- events, festivals and Jazz Fest. In congested areas, the bicycle munity Design Group is currently looking into how to make in perceived as the easiest and best way to navigate New Or- Nice Ride Minnesota more inclusive of this population.19 This leans. The Bike Easy board, members and supporters consid- report will be available later this year. er bicycle share one of the best ways to achieve our mission: making bicycling easier, safer and more fun. FIGURE – NICE RIDE MINNESOTA EXAMPLE FEE STRUCTURE SUBSCRIPTIONS TRIP FEE BENEFITS OF BICYCLE SHARE 24hr- $5.00 0-30 mins - free Bicycle share programs are designed to be part of the public 30-day – $30.00 up to 60 mins- $1.50 PLUS transit system complementing other modes of travel such as 1 year- $60.00 up to 90 mins $4.50 bus, streetcar and ferry lines. They are distinctly different from bicycle rental as they are intended for short trips (less Student 1 year -$50.00 additional 30 mins -$6.00 than 30 minutes). Approximately half of all trips in the US are less than 3 miles, a distance easily covered by bicycle. In Residents considering moving people around the city, bicycle share is an Bicycle Share is designed to be priced comparably with pub- efficient way to improve access to economic assets, improve lic transit for residents. Many systems price a 30 minute ride public health, relieve vehicle congestion and be fiscally smart. as free for both one-day and annual subscribers. Under this model, workers in the Central Business District could utilize the system to go to a meeting, grab lunch or run errands more than 1 mile away in less than 8 minutes. That is less time than it takes to drive and park or take a bus. As a cost-effective, healthy and fun way to get around town, bicycle share is designed for workers. A bicycle share system would increase the “Park Once” strategy that is suggested by the Downtown De- velopment District and compliment the proposed “Park-Once Circulator” bus.20

Tourists Improving the mobility of visitors through Bicycle Share Sys- tems extends the reach of their financial impact. Enhancing this industry, encouraging revitalization and entrepreneurs are all addressed in the New Orleans 2030 Plan. In New Or- leans, many a business outside of the French Quarter laments about drawing tourists to their destination. The streetcar and bus system reach could be expanded with a bicycle share program, connecting tourists into new neighborhoods, increasing their economic footprint and help create jobs and build businesses.

Operations revenue for the system on one-day passes can be significant, as seen in Boston, Washington, D.C. and Miami. These types of passes are generally more expensive than an- Transportation System Resilience nual passes, and the revenue generated can be over 50% of to- Bicycle share systems offer an alternative transportation op- tal revenue in a system.21 tion and increases access to transit by extending the range of users. In addition to reducing vehicle traffic congestion, it Bike Easy Supporters can reduce travel times for short trips, mitigate overcrowded In a 2010 survey, Bike Easy found that most supporters (n = transit at peak times, and increase active transportation and 332) who responded (greater than 60%) ride to Mardi Gras therefore public health.21 22

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 5 As a part of the transit system, bicycle share increases transit lunch from offi ce towers a mile away,” he said in a 2010 in- ridership because it extends a trip in the fi rst and last miles terview with Streetsblog.25 In fact, by reclaiming lower used and improves connectivity in the system. Even in cases when parking spaces for a bicycle share kiosk local businesses could bicycle share decreases transit ridership, as demonstrated see sales increases as was seen through bicycle facility instal- in a study11 from Lyon, France, transit revenues may remain lation in Portland and Toronto.26 consistent because many bicycle share users also hold transit passes. Fiscal Impact Public Health Bicycle share systems are much cheaper than other public transportation alternatives. For example, capital costs for a Communities with the highest rate of active transportation 200 bike, 20 kiosk system that would be required for a suc- (bicycling and walking) generally have the lowest obesity cessful start up in New Orleans would cost approximately $1.5 rates.23 With high obesity rates and low rates of physical activ- million.27 Compared to the cost of infrastructure and other ity, New Orleans needs to improve in both categories.16 Obe- public transit, where costs can run into tens of millions of dol- sity increases the risk of heart disease and diabetes, which are lars per mile, bicycle share is a very effective use of resources. the number 1 and number 6 causes of death among Ameri- cans. Replacing short vehicular trips (1-3 miles) with a bicycle Transportation infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians requires minimal additional time, once you account for time transports 5-10 times more people than driving, and costs spent searching for parking. But this small shift could have $3,000 - $1 million per mile traveled depending on the infra- a profound affect on obesity, giving people the 30 minutes of structure with bicycle lanes on the low end and bridges on the recommended physical activity per day.24 high end. For comparison, 1 mile of a four-lane urban freeway costs $20-$80 million.24 Because bicycle infrastructure costs Economic Impact much less per mile traveled, municipalities that invest in a bicycle share as part of the transportation system are making Bill Dossett, of Nice Ride Minneapolis, suggests bike share a strong investment in the transportation infrastructure and is an economic driver because it moves people beyond where public transit systems of their communities. they would ordinarily travel. “It gets people to come out to

FIGURE – OBESITY RATES VERSUS TRANSPORTATION MODE SHARE WALK, BIKE AND TRANSIT TRIPS 80 40 OBESITY PREVALENCE

60 30 Obesity prevalence and rates of active transportation (defi ned as the combined percentage of trips taken by 40 20 walking, bicycling, and public transit) in countries of Europe, North America, and Australia. BMI was computed from OBESITY PREVALENCE % 20 10 measured height and weight. Data were obtained from national surveys WALK + BIKE + TRANSIT TRIPS % of travel behavior and health indicators o o conducted between 1997 and 2006.23 USA LATVIA CANADA NORWAY AUSTRALIA NETHERLANDS GREAT BRITAIN GREAT Table and Data Source: Gotschi and Mills 2008

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 6 CASE STUDIES

FIGURE – BICYCLE SHARE SYSTEM CASE STUDIES SYSTEM LOCATION BIKES/KIOSKS INITIAL FUNDING

Nice Ride Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 1000/116 Non-Motorized Pilot, Donors New Balance Hubway Boston, MA 600/60 FTA, CMAQ, Donors DECO Bike Miami Beach, FL 650/72 100% private funding Capital Bikeshare Washington, DC 1,100/114 CMAQ, State DOT, Donors

Minneapolis - Nice Ride Minnesota (Nonprofit Boston - New Balance Hubway (ALTA/Bixi)

Operator) Hubway Bicycle Share is a 600 bike, 60 station system in Bos- ton, Massachusetts, with plans to expand the system by 20 Nice Ride Minnesota is a nonprofit that was set up specifically stations and 200 bicycles in spring 2012 to the neighboring to bring a $3.2 million, 700 bike, 65 station, system to Min- municipalities of Somerville, Cambridge, and shortly thereaf- neapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. The system was launched ter Brookline.31 The system operates 24 hours per day, 7 days on June 14, 2010 and is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per a week but only for 3 seasons. The system is stored off street week from April to November. The fee structure offers annual during the winter months. The system’s day-to-day opera- ($60), monthly ($30) and daily ($5) options.28 The launch and tions are run by ALTA Bicycle Share and through a contract day-to-day operations are conducted by Nice Ride Minnesota, with each municipality and coordinated by the Metropolitan a nonprofit based operator formed solely to manage the Nice Area Planning Council (MAPC). The operating contract en- Ride bicycle share system.29 sures that both municipalities and the operator share risks and rewards. Funding the System Transit for Livable Communities, another Minnesota non- System ridership has far exceeded expectations, reaching profit, was designated by Congress to distribute $21.5 million 100,000 riders in just 10 weeks. Minneapolis and Denver’s to local projects through the Non-Motorized Transportation systems took 6 months and 7.5 months respectively to reach Pilot Project in 2005. Of this funding, Nice Ride Minnesota similar ridership goals. Population density and locating sta- received more than $1.6 million, the remainder of the project tions close to one another are linked to the success of this pro- funding came from tobacco settlement money via Blue Cross gram; as most under-performing stations are located on the Blue Shield of Minnesota ($1 million) and $600,000 raised by edge of the system.32 local business donors (e.g. Target) and the City of Minneapolis.

Approximately 45% of riders are annual members and 55% are Logistics of Opening the System day-pass users, with fee structures similar to other systems As a nonprofit builder and operator, Nice Ride Minnesota (e.g. $85 annual pass, $5 day pass, $12 three-day pass). pieced together many different players to build their bicycle share system. ALTA Planning & Design analyzed and recom- Regional Coordination mended kiosk placement while, Public Bike Share System Co. Launched in the summer of 2011, this bicycle share system was (developer of the BIXI system in Montreal) supplied equip- initiated by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). ment and rolling stock, as well as coordinated assembly and MAPC is a regional planning agency given authority by legisla- installation.30 tive action by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sup- ports smart growth and regional collaboration and has helped Phasing and Expansion 4 local municipalities (Boston, Sommerville, Cambridge and Limited capital funds require that bicycle share programs Brookline) establish a regional bicycle share program. phase in new stations and bicycles. In March 2011, phase 2 was funded by $1.78 million of additional private and public Utilizing a regional organization with state appointed author- donations, expanding the system to 116 kiosks and 1000 bi- ity helped secure funding, procure a vendor, facilitate regional cycles. sponsorship, and negotiate a contract between the individual

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 7 cities and the bike share vendor; all while maintaining a seam- ment (DOTD) allows for bicycle and pedestrian projects with less user interface to provide whole system continuity. This CMAQ funding but has yet to award such a bicycle share model is essential when metropolitan areas contain dense grant. Bicycle share would fall under the bicycle project type populations across adjacent municipalities. outlined in the Local Public Agency Manual Specific Program Information Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program Funding the System (CMAQ) and was used in Boston’s Hubway system.34 Greater Initial capital expenses and rolling stock acquisition were New Orleans has generally not qualified for CMAQ funding in funded through three methods: Federal Transit Administra- the past, but recent revision to DOTD policies and air quality tion (FTA) Bus Livability Initiative, Congestion Mitigation standards open the door to potential CMAQ funding.35 and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and local sponsors and donors. Several lessons are to be learned from MAPC’s experiences with these funding sources.

FTA – Bus Facilities Livability Program MAPC won funding from this FTA source because of new guidelines that allow certain bicycle and pedestrian improvements within ½ mile for pedestrian improvements and 3 miles for bicycle improvements. In Boston, bicycle share systems were deemed eligible within 100ft of transit stops.32 In all, this funding paid for 1/3 of capital costs and 3 years of operation.

“The Bus Facilities Livability Program makes funds available to public transit providers to finance capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equip- Local Donors ment and to construct bus-related facilities, including pro- Larger markets have better access to this capital. In New York grams of bus and bus-related projects for assistance.” City, Boston or Los Angeles, many times a system can solicit -Bus Livability Program Public Announcement33 100% of private funds required from one or a few large donors. In New Orleans, the operator will need a strategy to solicit sev- These funds include a required 20% local match and a capital eral smaller donations to meet the local match. expense restriction. Bicycles are not counted as capital as they are “rolling stock.” To solve this problem, MAPC used this Additionally, as stated above, MAPC learned that timing of FTA funding to cover launch fees (e.g. website and backend these donations is critical to meet granting agency match re- development) as well as kiosk and maintenance equipment. quirements.

For local match funding to be considered part of the grant it Logistics of Opening the System had to be without a quid pro quo (e.g. advertising space) and ALTA Bicycle Share was awarded a 3-year, $6 million contract solicitation has to begin after the FTA grant is submitted. from Boston to operate the front and back end of the system in April 2011.36 Each municipality in the system must sign a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement separate contract with ALTA. MAPC helps negotiate among (CMAQ) Program the parties and with procurement of grants and funding. The Three of the four municipalities in the Hubway system utilized Boston launch was rolled out on July 27, 2011 with 47 stations. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. In order to utilize this federal money, the Mas- The contract between ALTA (the operator) and Boston (the sachusetts Department of Transportation (MASS DOT) had to municipality) reduces risk exposure to the City of Boston, and approve use for bicycle share programs and the municipalities provides baseline funding from the municipality through a had to qualify based on the federal air quality standards. monthly operations fee to the operator. This fee covers about ½ of operations expenditures. The operator collects all user The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Develop- fees from the bike share system to pay the other ½ of projected

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 8 costs. If the operator is efficient and operates with lower ex- Operating the System penditures than projected, they may keep this marginal profit. Advertising revenue is significantly less than they expected, If additional profit is made beyond projections, the city and bringing in about $100 per bike. Due to their agreement with operator split the additional profits 50/50. The city is required Miami Beach, DecoBike is not allowed to advertise on the ki- to invest some of this money back into the system. The opera- osks themselves.40 While allowing such ad placement would tor is required to reinvest half of their profits into the system.37 improve both DecoBike and Miami Beach’s revenue take in the By sharing risk and reward, both partners are committed to venture, public sentiment is that they would detract from the the success of the program. This model would increase the aesthetics of the neighborhood - a valuable lesson for deploy- likelihood of sustainability of a bike share program in New ing such a scheme in New Orleans, where historic charm is Orleans because it commits both the City of New Orleans and highly valued. Residents and tourists of Miami Beach are both the operator to adjust and attain success. However, the com- taking advantage of the system, with over half of rides taken plicated nature of the agreement could make it more difficult by locals.40 to launch a system. Phasing and Expansion Miami Beach – (DecoBike) DecoBike has an inventory of 350 bicycles that go unused, ready to deploy but is still negotiating locations with the City Deco Bike launched a 650 bicycle, 72 station system in March of Miami Beach and other transportation agencies like the 2011 in Miami Beach, Florida and reached 180,000 rides by Florida Department of Transportation. July 2011. Operations are active 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Their fee structure offers two monthly plans and Washington DC - Capital Bikeshare (ALTA) several hourly block plans, but no annual membership.38 Rev- enue comes from advertising on the kiosks and membership Smartbike DC was the first North American bicycle share sys- fees only. tem started as a pilot project in 2008 by Clear Channel with 120 bicycles and 10 stations as an outdoor advertising concessionaire. Smartbike did not succeed because it was not large enough or concentrate the kiosks enough to generate the user fees necessary for sustainability. In the same year, Arlington, Virginia was also working on its own system and in partnership with Washington, D.C. developed Capital Bikeshare, unveiled in May 2010. It has since developed into the largest system in the US – a 1,100 bike, 114 station system operated by ALTA Bicycle Share with Public Bike System Company (BIXI) bicycles. Capital Bikeshare employs 22 full-time and part- time staff members.

Funding the System Building the $6 million system was funded with a mix of fed- Source: DecoBike LLC eral, state and local sources, including CMAQ funding (first 100 stations). The 20% local match came from the Virginia Funding the System State Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Arling- DecoBike is unique in the US, having funded the $4 million ton County and local sponsors including the Crystal City Busi- program entirely without public funding as a concessionaire ness Improvement District. for the City of Miami Beach. In order to use Miami Beach’s public spaces for their kiosks DecoBike pays the city 12% of Logistics of Opening the System membership fees and 25% of advertising revenue estimated As of April 2012, the system was almost in the black, having to be worth $13 million to Miami Beach over the 6 year con- generated $2.47 million in operational revenue, and spent tract.39 Operating expenses are projected to be $1.8 million $2.54 million in operational costs. Additional capital costs annually, with 1/3 covered by advertising revenue, and the re- must be covered by sponsorships or grants to replace old parts mainder, and any profit, coming from user fees. or expand the system.53

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 9 CONSIDERATIONS FOR BIKE SHARE IN (601,723 & 9,865/sq mi) the downtown core has a day-time population of 120,000,20 a number similar to the cities above and a significant tourist population of 7.5 million per year.20 NEW ORLEANS Day-time population and tourist population density are critical determinants for placement of bicycle share infrastruc- The case for bicycle share in New Orleans is clear, with a need ture, with the highest population density generating the high- for increased physical activity, obesity reduction and transit est number of rides and income for the system.42 connectivity. Several components for a successful program are already in place: an active rider base, new infrastructure Kiosk placement and system layout are critical to sustainabil- improvements and a large tourism industry. ity of a system because over 70% of revenue from the systems analyzed come from user fees. Outlying “satellite” or “cor- Population of New Orleans ridor” bicycle share kiosk layouts reduce the revenue of the system and those kiosks produce the least amount of income. As reported in the 2010 Census,41 New Orleans’ population If locating a bicycle share kiosk in a culturally important loca- was 343,829 individuals with a population density of 2,029 tion (e.g. City Park, Audubon Park, university campuses) must per square mile. However, using USGS GAP Program data, be done, then the costs associated with this placement need a more accurate density of 3,790 individuals per square mile to be analyzed by the operator before those kiosks are placed. is determined by only accounting for dry developable land.52 An expert operator would be best suited to answer this ques- While New Orleans is slightly less dense than successful bicy- tion as part of an RFP process. We recommend the placement cle share communities such as Minneapolis (382,578 & 7,088/ of kiosks in the first phase of the system in the downtown core sq mi), Denver (600,158 & 3,922/sq mi) and Washington D.C

FIGURE – MAP OF DOWNTOWN- FACING NEIGHBORHOODS IN NEW ORLEANS

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 10 and downtown facing neighborhoods. Any additional phasing for proposals in the US typically bundle the first three years of to include other parts of the city requires careful analysis to operating expenses and the capital expenses of starting a bi- determine if those parts of the system will be sustainable. cycle share into grants and financing of the program. Beyond 3 years, operating revenues from advertising and usage fees Model Systems – Who will manage the alone are expected to fund the ongoing bicycle share operations. Very few public transit systems expect to self-support program? their operations without public funds. Of capital funding Many different models have been utilized world-wide. Bicycle sources, many are federal and require a state or local match share operators and providers have included municipalities, to secure. There are several different models for building and transportation authorities, universities, nonprofit organiza- operating a bicycle share system. Vendors typically execute tions, advertising companies and other for-profit entities.11 a proposal requested by local municipalities and provide the In North America, however, the predominant operator of 3rd technology, back-end systems and equipment for the system. generation bicycle share systems involve a municipality, qua- In some instances, a municipality or nonprofit owns the capi- si-government entity or nonprofit acquiring federal start up tal and rolling stock while the vendor operates the program. funds and contracting with a private entity to start up and op- In most instances, a municipality owns the capital and roll- erate the system. The two most predominant operators in the ing stock, while the vendor operates the system. Three such United States are B-Cycle (Denver and Chicago) and ALTA/ structures could be used in New Orleans: Advertising Con- Bixi (Washington, DC, Chicago, New York City, Boston). tract, Concessionaire or Municipality Contracted bicycle share Third Generation bicycle share business plans and requests system.

FIGURE – BICYCLE SHARE CITIES AND OPERATORS

NAME WEBSITE OPERATOR SYSTEM BICYCLES KIOSKS Capital Bikeshare www.capitalBikeshare.com ALTA Bike Share BIXI 1200 140

New Balance Hubway www.thehubway.com ALTA Bike Share BIXI 600 60

Boulder B-Cycle boulder.bcycle.com B-Cycle B-Cycle 131 15

Denver B-cycle http://www.denverbikesharing.org B-Cycle B-Cycle 510 51

Des Moines B-cycle desmoines.bcycle.com B-Cycle B-Cycle 18 4

Hawaii B-cycle hawaii.bcycle.com B-Cycle B-Cycle 12 2

Madison B-cycle http://madison.bcycle.com/ B-Cycle B-Cycle 346 26

DECOBIKE www.decobike.com DecoBike, LLC DecoBike, LLC 1000 100

Nice Ride Minnesota http://www.niceridemn.org/ Nice Ride Minnesota BIXI 700 95

Omaha B-cycle http://omaha.bcycle.com B-Cycle B-Cycle 35 5

WSU Green Bikes www.greenbike.wsu.edu; http://www. WSU BIXI 32 4 bixisystem.com/what-we-achived/ case-studies-info/?id=11

San Antonio B-cycle http://sanantonio.bcycle.com/ B-Cycle B-Cycle 189 20

B-cycle http://spartanburg.bcycle.com B-Cycle B-Cycle 14 2

Charm City Bikeshare B-Cycle B-Cycle 250 30

Broward County B-cycle http://browardcounty.bcycle.com/ B-Cycle B-Cycle 230 23

Louisville B-cycle http://louisville.bcycle.com/ B-Cycle B-Cycle 750 74

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 11 Advertising Contract (For-Profit Advertising cycle share should be born of the same mold. Any for-profit operator or model needs to enter a mutual risk, mutual benefit Firm) contract with the RFP issuing entity to ensure political will to Advertising only contracts are not optimal for promoting bi- make the program successful from the political establishment. cycle share in North America. First generation systems in Paris and Barcelona were run by JC Decaux and Adshel as Bicycle share has many public benefits that a municipality “Smart Bikes”. These early systems were not designed with a should consider in negotiating with an operator. When the mission to provide a transportation system, but as an advertis- municipality that hosts the bicycle share doesn’t have a stake ing mode. As a result, bicycle quality, rebalancing the system in the success of the program they will be less flexible in rene- and customer service all suffered and some of these systems gotiating contracts to ensure success. folded. An agreement with local municipalities with cost and expense sharing components helps all parties share risk and reward and thus provide proper incentive to all parties for suc- Municipality Contracted (Franchisee Pays to cess. It is highly recommended that this model is not utilized Use Public Space) for a New Orleans bicycle share system. Advertising plays a In a franchisee model, the operator of the business that uses critical role in operating funds, but should not be the sole mo- public space pays rent for that use. Examples include special tivation for operating a bicycle share system. events on public spaces like parades or festivals, vendors at public markets and gallery poles mounted into the sidewalk. Bicycle Share Concessionaires (Operator Permanent or temporary usage of the space is paid for in rents Granted Public Space) by the operator, such as Madison B-Cycle.

In a concessionaire model, the operator is given rights to use Whichever corporate structure (nonprofit or for-profit), or public space to operate the program. The system does not pay land-use model (concessionaire or franchisees) is utilized, it for the space it uses as it is offering a service for the public is critical that the oversight agency take a strong role in select- good. These are common models for services such as transit, ing a well qualified operator that has had previous experience telecommunications, and water infrastructure. running a bicycle share system. As part of the transportation network, this point cannot be stressed enough. An operator In US bicycle share, there are nonprofit and for-profit con- with no experience with bike share will likely fail as profit cessionaires. A nonprofit concessionaire will work closely margins are slim. After issuing an RFP in 2011, New York City with the municipality to ensure both parties are invested in received 6 proposals from professional bicycle share operators the programs success. In our analysis, Nice Ride Minnesota to run their new bicycle share systems.44 New Orleans should falls into this category. A for-profit concessionaire has similar expect a similar number of proposals as operators qualified to motivations to ensure success, but in at least one instance the run such a system in the United States are limited. municipality shares no risk (DecoBike in Miami Beach). As a result, the system is struggling to bring in enough revenue from advertising and user fees alone. At the same time, the LOGISTICS: FLEET, KIOSKS AND THEFT City of Miami Beach is unwilling to alter the original contract. The solution is found in other for-profit systems, such as Hub- REDUCTION way (Boston) and Capital Bikeshare (Washington D.C.) operated by for-profit companies, they have entered contracts of How Will Fleet Size Be Determined? revenue and cost sharing with the municipality to ensure local Based on population size, vendors recommend several differ- political buy-in. ent sizes of fleets and kiosks. Locating bicycle share kiosks in close proximity to dense population centers, destinations and By relying on user fees and advertising alone, Miami Beach to each other are critical to a successful program. is politically less able to make contract changes to make the program successful. If the City of Miami Beach were paying Both ALTA and B-Cycle suggests that an initial system of for part of the program, or if it were a player in bringing pub- about 20 kiosks and 200 bicycles could be sufficient to get the lic funds to the table, the accountability of such a partnership benefit of economies of scale in New Orleans. The actual num- would help ensure success. The public nature of transit pro- ber of bicycles and kiosks should be addressed by the operator grams exists because they are created for a public good. Bi- in the RFP process.

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 12 Where to Place Kiosks for similar rational as sidewalk placement. Coordinating with In addition to density of users and kiosks, choosing equipment park, transit and public right-of-way management agencies is that has modular and movable kiosks can help with long-term therefore critical to make these kiosk placements. placement. If there is low usage, or poor placement, moving the kiosk to a better location is easier in a modular system Historic Neighborhoods than permanently and physically fixed kiosks. New Orleans takes pride in preservation of historic neighborhoods. In placing bicycle share kiosks it will be important to Population Density Recommendations consult with these commissions. However, the right of way Density considerations are important when deciding on kiosk is governed by the Department of Public Works (DPW) and placement to maximize usage. Placing kiosks close together it will likely be required to get kiosk locations approved by (5-7 city blocks) allows flexibility in usage and thus increas- the DPW with appropriate public engagement processes. In es the number of users. In all the case studies we analyzed, Boston, there are many preservation commissions and station kiosks on the edge of the system, satellite stations and small locations were presented to each commission. Only one loca- pilot programs received significantly lower usage making the tion was denied, and subsequently located a block away to a stations revenue negative. We recommend that all stations less desirable location with less pedestrian traffic and poorer be placed in close proximity to each other as well as down- lighting.32 Color and logos can be designed to be lower profile town amenities in the Central Business District, French Quar- and blend with the neighborhoods where they are placed. ter, Warehouse District, Lower Garden District and Marigny neighborhoods. By centrally locating all kiosks, the system Land Use and Leasing will be more accessible, more profitable and therefore more Utilizing public space for bicycle share kiosks is for the pub- successful. lic good. This rationale is similar to that used to justify mass transit service from the Regional Transit Authority. Bicycle Bicycle share kiosks should be located in the most high density share helps the public in many ways such as improved public areas almost in exclusion to all other zones. Corridors of bi- health, economic accessibility and reduced vehicular conges- cycle share equipment, as well as “satellite” stations would be tion. As such, an agreement with the operating entity should inefficient45 and revenue negative.46 be reached with the City of New Orleans on a system for determining kiosk placement at minimal or no cost to the bicycle Sidewalk share program. By far the most popular placement in the United States, placing kiosks on the sidewalk reduces risk of damage by automo- Special Events – Modular Systems biles and improves access to casual riders and pedestrians. Placement should be considered on sidewalks with sufficient With over 200 festivals per year, and an active convention in- width to accommodate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) dustry, we have a large market for mobile or temporary kiosks. standards. As thousands of conventioneers or festival-goers descend on the Fairgrounds, City Park or other periodic destinations, uti- Roadbed lizing bicycle share as a mode to get to and from the activity Placement is the roadbed in the parking lane could be ideal in will be a vital part of our transportation network. areas of narrower sidewalks or where sidewalks are used for other purposes (e.g. sidewalk cafes). Treatments such as “curb There are two ways to accommodate large, periodic demand extensions” into the parking lane could calm traffic, as well as associated with these events: by moving a number of modular provide protected space for a bicycle share kiosk. New York kiosks every time there’s an event or setting up a virtual kiosk City will make wide use of parking lanes for kiosk placement at the event. to leave sidewalks open and unobstructed. By reclaiming less used parking spaces for a bicycle share kiosk local businesses Modular Kiosks could see sales increases.47 Moving kiosks to the site would be beneficial in experiencing the full automated system which could encourage new rid- Public Spaces ers by showing how simple it is to use. Consider that for each Parks, squares, transit facilities and other public spaces pro- event, the rolling stock (bicycles) and capital would have to be vide excellent placement opportunities for bicycle share kiosks trucked in and be physically secured in place.

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 13 Virtual Kiosk theft measures were not fully considered and Paris lost about Denver B-Cycle, the bike share operator in Denver, Colorado 50% of phase 1 bicycles.54 Madrid had 20% fewer stolen and has partnered with a local nonprofit, Bike Denver, to provide damaged bicycles than Paris despite a higher crime rate. Ma- service at periodic events by setting up a booth with mobile drid’s system was opened later than Paris’ and lessons learned computers and staffed with Bike Denver volunteers. Through in Parish led to development of an improved locking system this arrangement, Denver B-Cycle benefits from increased in Madrid. usage and new users, while Bike Denver gets more people on bicycles and is able to reach out to bicycle riders about their Many problems in the European systems were addressed in US education and advocacy initiatives.48 systems by changing the locking mechanism, installing radio frequency identification (RFID) or GPS tracking on the bikes Safety and Helmets and launching a public relations campaign to instill pride in the systems. It should be noted that GPS tracking is gener- Helmets are not currently required for adult riders by Louisi- ally avoided in bicycle share systems because of the high cost ana state law or by any local ordinance. Sharing helmets has ($100,000 installation cost) and low return (prevents $10,000 not been successfully implemented in other programs, but in damage).1 In Washington, D.C. the system lost 5 bikes out systems in New York, Denver and Boston encourage helmet of 1,100. In Denver, 2 out of 700 and in Minneapolis, 1 bicycle use by offering discounts to annual members through part- was lost out of 700 in the first year of operation. Theft rates nerships with retail shops in the city. were significantly lower in the US than those in Europe and even far below estimates the system operators made them- Safety of bicycle share riders can be achieved through new selves, often expecting to lose 10% of rolling stock.49 member education, placards at kiosks and directions on the handlebars of the bicycles. Public service announcements and General precautions to be taken to reduce theft and vandalism coordination with existing public transportation safety mar- include common sense solutions like placing kiosks in well-lit, keting (currently done through the Regional Planning Com- public places. Locations that will have the highest use gener- mission) could incorporate safety messaging to bicycle riders ally fit this profile. Bicycle share in New Orleans is possible to and improve adherence to rules of the road for bicycle riders. operate with relatively low theft rates.

City Liability and User Risk User Fees

The City of New Orleans, in entering a contract with a conces- User fees account for 75 – 85% of operational revenue in the sionaire or franchisee, will determine the limits of their liabil- case studies we examined. Bicycle share systems in the US ity with that contractor. Systems exist at the City to determine generally institute a fee structure that encourages short rides. what these limits are, as well as installing equipment on public The target is to make short one-way trips affordable and dis- property for the public good. Additionally, users of the system couraging all-day use with a graduated fee structure. By keep- should be required to hold harmless the operator of the system ing fees low for short trips, users will opt to use the system as a condition of using the bicycles. as part of a transit trip. As a user keeps the bicycle longer, fees increase beyond the price of a private bicycle rental. This Theft Protection structure helps keep the bicycles available to every day users and encourages riders to pick up a bike at one kiosk and return Crime and theft in New Orleans can be a problem. However, it to a different kiosk at their destination. Then, check a bi- bicycle share can still be successful in the city. Counter mea- cycle out when they are ready for the return trip. sures include designing bicycle share bikes to look very different from personal bikes, with a step-through frame, plastic FIGURE – NICE RIDE MINNESOTA EXAMPLE FEE STRUCTURE skirt-guard and distinctive handlebars. Any stolen bicycles SUBSCRIPTIONS TRIP FEE are easy to identify, thus reducing their appeal as a target for 24hr- $5.00 0-30 mins - free theft.46 30-day – $30.00 up to 60 mins- $1.50 Many bicycle share systems in the US do not suffer from large PLUS 1 year- $60.00 up to 90 mins $4.50 levels of theft or vandalism as was seen in earlier versions of bicycle share in Paris and Madrid. As an early system, anti- Student 1 year -$50.00 additional 30 mins -$6.00

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 14 However, each market is different, and it is recommended that IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS any request for proposals or a new operator of a bicycle share system commission a market study to see what prices the mar- From our analysis, New Orleans needs to take the following ket will bear. Such a study would be critical to the long-term steps in order to bring Bicycle Share to the city. Bike Easy economic vitality of a bicycle share system. seeks to be the “convening entity” with our potential responsi- bilities outlined below.

1. Create the Bike Share Implementation Taskforce, with representation from key stakeholders, to oversee the convening entity as it develops and executes the implementation plan. 2. Raise funds (approximately $40,000) and hire a staff person to head the Bike Share Implementation Taskforce. 3. Develop an implementation plan that includes strategies to: • Secure capital and rolling stock funding. • Build relationships with municipal agencies and transit authorities, gaining official support through tools such as a memorandum of understanding, city council action (an ordinance or resolution), and/or contract. • Secure sponsorship commitments from private and public Advertising Revenue funders. Advertising accounted for 10 – 18% of operating revenue in • Develop a request for proposals (RFP) to find an experi- the case studies we considered. New Orleans has a higher than enced operator. average advertising rate for mobile advertising. For example, • Convene a selection committee of the Bike Share Implemen- advertising rates for pedicabs are significantly higher in New tation Taskforce and municipal stakeholders (e.g. Regional Orleans than in other markets, and advertising revenue in a Planning Commission, Department of Public Works, May- bicycle share system could have similar implications.49 or’s Office and City Council) to review RFP responses. • Issue the RFP and select a winning candidate. Phasing 4. Convening entity implements the plan. 5. Conduct outreach to the community and elected officials such Large capital and rolling stock expenses make phasing a feasi- as a “Demo Day” at City Hall where operators can show off ble solution to build out a complete system with limited fund- their equipment. ing. For example, Nice Ride Minnesota unveiled a $3.2 million 6. Identify a funding recipient for capital and rolling stock costs 65 kiosk bicycle share system in 2010 and further expanded it – a municipal authority, nonprofit or municipality. These to a 116 kiosk system in 2011. The second phase was funded could be the City of New Orleans, the Regional Transit Author- by a more modest $1.78 million funding infusion, $780,000 ity, the Regional Planning Commission, Bike Easy or other of which came from private sources. By phasing, the system nonprofit. has a chance to demonstrate success, attract new sponsors as 7. Convene an entity or municipal agency to issue the operator well as take advantage of similar sources of funding released contract. in later years. 8. Issue RFP to bring in an expert operator.

To properly phase a project, the initial phase should entirely From the case studies we considered, once the third step be focused on high-density, high-activity areas where intense, above is reached it takes approximately 12-18 months to bring short-term usage is significantly more likely, like the CBD, bicycle share to a city. We believe that bicycle share can have a French Quarter and Warehouse District. A second phase is a profound positive impact on the quality of life, economic vital- great time to add funders and stations in good, but less ideal ity and public health of our city and wholeheartedly endorse locations such as the other 8 “downtown facing neighbor- the concept of bike share and its realization in New Orleans. hoods”20 in the city. A second phase also presents fundrais- ing opportunities for additional sponsors of rack location near sponsors’ businesses (e.g. major employers, redevelopments).

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 15 FIGURE – PROPOSED PHASE MAP

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 16 APPENDIX – BICYCLE SHARE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

A bicycle share program in New Orleans has a relatively low start up cost. Cost per mile and per person of a bicycle share system significantly outperforms all other transit options.

Capital Costs – Federal Funding and Private Donors Many federal funding opportunities are shifting; however, historically the federal government has given municipal planning organization (MPOs) and State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) flexibility in how they spend federal dollars. The transportation bill currently being debated in Congress (MAP-21) has many potential outcomes, but it is anticipated a similar model with local flexibility will prevail.50 Therefore, it is important that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) and the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) are close partners in any bicycle share endeavor to help bring federal dollars to the project.

Bicycle share systems have been successfully funded through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ),35 FTA: Bus Liv- ability Program33, Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TSCP).51 The US Depart- ment of Transportation cites 4 potential federal programs in addition to those listed above that could fund a bicycle share program in New Orleans. These sources include the National Highway System (NHS), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Transportation Enhancements (TE), and Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC).

FIGURE – BICYCLE SHARE FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

FUNDING SOURCE CRITERIA Federal Transit Administra- Address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income per- tion - Job Acces and Reverse sons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Must be done as part of a locally developed Commute Program transit-human services transportation plan.

Federal Trainsit Administra- The Bus Livability Initiative makes funds available to public transportation providers to finance tion - Livability and Sustain- capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to con- able Communities struct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects

National Highway System The purpose of the NHS is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which serve major population centers

Surface Transportation Pro- The Surface Transportation Program improves highway and roadway safety. STP and CMAQ gram funds may be used for the construction of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities and for carrying out non-construction projects related to safe bicycle use.

Congestion Mitigation and Air The CMAQ program was conceived to support surface transportation projects and other related Quality Improvement efforts that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief.

Federal Highway Administra- Transportation Enhancement Activities offer funding opportunities to help expand transportation Transportation Enhance- tion choices and enhance the transportation experience through 12 eligible TE activities related ment Activities (TEA) to surface transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety programs

Transportation and Commu- Investigate the relationships between transportation, community, and system preservation nity System Preservation plans and practices and identify private sector-based initiatives to improve such relationships.

Federal grant programs have different limitations and exclusions. One common element is a local match, typically between 10%-20%. Some only cover capital costs, others excluding rolling stock and operating expenses, to name a few. Paying close attention to these details when determining the order to seek funding in can make or break a new program.

Each year, the Regional Planning Commission reports Federally Obligated Projects35, which is a good guide to seeking federal funding and should be utilized to pay for all or part of a bicycle share program.

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 17 Local and Corporate Donations/Match Bicycle share systems have found private money to fund the system through hospitals, insurance companies, universities, real estate developers, city bond issues and city general funding. Timing of receiving these match dollars is critical, because many times they must be identified, but not collected before a federal funding application is submitted.

Operating Costs for a New Orleans Bicycle Share Many programs roll the first 3 years of operating costs into the start up capital costs. These costs include maintenance, rolling stock replacement and repair, daily rebalancing (moving bicycles by truck), and backend expenses such as bicycle tracking, website, mobile apps and customer service.

Revenue Potential According to the four bicycle share systems we evaluated, their models show revenue generated from user fees and advertising cover most expenses in the first three years, and become revenue positive starting the 4th year of operation.

As we saw with pedicabs, advertising rates are higher in New Orleans than other cities.50 With potentially higher revenue from one day passes pur- chased by our large daytime population of tourists, a New Orleans bicycle share system could reach a revenue-positive position before the 4th year.

Revenue Models Bicycle share relies on user fees to fund a majority of the program. In other cities 40-60% is from day pass users and 40-60% is from annual pass users. Advertising on the bicycles makes up 10-20% of annual revenue.

Expense Estimates Used in This Report Starting an effective bicycle share system in New Orleans will cost between $1-2 million. Price will vary with fleet size, vendor and back-end system functions. A general estimate is that it costs $3,000-4,000 per bike to open the system and operate it for the first 3 years. The bicycles themselves cost approximately $1,200 each. These estimates were determined through interviews with ALTA and B-Cycle.

Installation of kiosks, back-end systems development, membership services, cost and revenue sharing agreements with the city and other operating costs need to be determined in the RFP process.

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 18 WORKS CITED Bicycle Lanes and Increased Ridership in an Urban, Mixed-Income Setting in New Orleans, Louisiana” 4 Jan 2011. Journal of Physical Activity and 1 PLAN FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: NEW ORLEANS 2030 http://www. Health. Accessed 14 Dec 2011. Available http://journals.humankinetics. nolamasterplan.org/documentsandrresources.asp com/jpah-pdf-articles?DocumentScreen=Detail&ccs=6412&cl=21370 2 “New Orleans Active Transportation Symposium.” Presentation. Jennifer 17 Borecki, Natalie, et. al. “Capital Bike Share Study: A Look at Casual Users Ruley, PE, Urban Planning Specialist and Engineer with the Louisiana and Operation.” 2012 Jan. Accessed 9 Jan 2012. Available http://ralphbu. Public Health Institute — “New Orleans Active Transportation: Where We files.wordpress.com/2012/01/vt-bike-share-study-final3.pdf Are and Where We’re Going”. 20 Nov 2011 18 Baker, Linda. “How to Get More Bicyclists on the Road: To boost urban 3 Lancaster, James. “Rack Map.” Where Ya’ Rack. Accessed 20 Dec 2011. bicycling, figure out what women want” 16 Oct 2009 http://www. Available http://whereyarack.org/rack-map scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-more-bicyclists-on-the- 4 Bicycle Friendly Community Master List. League of American Bicyclists. road Nov 2011. Accessed 10 Dec 2011. Available http://www.bikeleague.org/ 19 Crowther, Jean Crow. Planner, Alta Planning + Design. Greenville, South programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/ Carolina. Interview and email exchanges. Mar 2012. 5 “About the BFC Program.” League of American Bicyclists. Bicycle Friendly 20 New Orleans Mobility and Parking Study. Downtown Development Community Program. Accessed 10 Nov 2011 http://www.bikeleague.org/ District. New Orleans, Louisiana. January 2009. Nelson\Nygaard programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/bfc_about.php Consulting Associates an Walker Parking Consultants. University of New 6 Council Adopts Complete Streets. 16 Dec 2011. Bike Easy. Accessed 21 Dec Orleans Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. and Fernandez Plans 2011 http://bikeeasy.org/news/archives/229/ 21 JzTI and Bonnette Consulting. Philadelphia Bikeshare Concept Study. 7 2009 Bicycle Commuter Rates in U.S. 70 Largest Cities. http://www. Philadelphia: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 2010. bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/2009_bike_small.pdf 22 Bike Sharing. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency sfmta.com/ 8 Portland Bicycle Count Report 2009. Bike Portland. Accessed 13 Dec 2011. cms/bshare/indxbishare.htm http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/ 23 Bassett, David R. et. al. “Walking, Cycling and Obesity Rates in Europe, bikecount2009reportfinal.pdf North America and Australia.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 9 Fried, Ben. “Safety in Numbers: It’s Happening in NYC.” 5 June 2009. May 2008. 795-814. Accessed 10 Oct 2011. Available http://policy.rutgers. Accessed 5 Dec 2011. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/05/safety-in- edu/faculty/pucher/jpah08.pdf numbers-its-happening-in-nyc/ 24 Gotshci, Thomas and Kevin Mills. “Active Transport for America: The 10 Fields, Willard. “Establishing New Orleans as National Leader in Active Case for Increased Investment in Bicycling and Walking.” Rails to Trails Transportation: Conservancy and Bikes Belong. 2008. Accessed 1 Sept 2011. Available Solidifying Progress, Moving Towards an Active Transportation Culture.” http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/atfa/ 21 Nov 2011. Handout at New Orleans Active Transportation Symposium. ATFA_20081020.pdf 11 Demaio, Paul. “Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and 25 Fried, Ben. “Sponsors Sold on Health, Economic Benefits of Minneapolis Future.” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2009. Available Bike-Share.” 8 Feb 2010. Accessed 22 Dec 2011. Available http://www. http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT12-4DeMaio.pdf streetsblog.org/2010/02/08/sponsors-sold-on-health-economic-benefits- 12 Hinterthuer, Adam. “Bicycle Safety in Numbers.” Scientific American of-minneapolis-bike-share/ Podcast. 10 September 2008. Accessed 30 Oct 2011. Available http://www. 26 Flusche, Darren. “The Economic Benefits of Bicycle Infrastructure scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=46B9E06D-FC8E-9007- Investments.” June 2009. League of American Bicyclists. Accessed 10 E864EF0B7227869B Oct 2011. Available http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/ 13 Kazis, Noah. “From London to D.C., Bike-Sharing Is Safer Than Riding economic_benefits_bicycle_infrastructure_report.pdf Your Own Bike.” Street Blog. 16 June 2011. Accessed 13 Dec 2011. Available 27 Reeder, Tyler. B-Cycle Customer Service. Personal Interview 9 Nov 2011. http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/06/16/from-london-to-d-c-bike-sharing- 28 Nordine, Danielle. “Mpls to launch bike-share system.” 09 June 2010. The is-safer-than-riding-your-own-bike/ Minnesota Daily. Accessed 30 Nov 2011. Available http://www.mndaily. 14 http://ralphbu.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/pucher-buehler_finalreport_ com/2010/06/09/mpls-launch-bike-share-system utrc_29mar2011.pdf 29 Nice Ride Minnesota. Accessed 20 Nov 2011. Available https://www. 15 Fields, Willard. “Active Transportation Measurement and Benchmarking niceridemn.org/about/ Development: New Orleans Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Report, 2010- 30 “Our Story.” Nice Ride Minnesota. Accessed 20 Dec 2011. Available https:// 2011.” Pedestrian and Bicycle Resource Initiative, Merritt C. Becker www.niceridemn.org/about/ Jr. University of New Orleans Transportation Institute. January 2012. 31 Moskowitz, Eric. Hubway to branch out next spring. 28 Nov 2011. Boston Available http://transportation.uno.edu/phire-content/assets/files/ Globe. Accessed 20 Dec 2011. Available http://articles.boston.com/2011- PBRICR_2011_Final.pdf 11-28/news/30451121_1_empty-stations-bikes-bicycle-sharing

16 Parker, Kathryn M, Jeanette Gustat, and Janet C. Rice. “Installation of 32 Robertson, Jessica. Transportation Coordinator, Metropolitan Area

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 19 Planning Council. Phone Interview. 10 Nov 2011 www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/tags/tag/ 33 FTA Bus and Bus Facilities Livability Initiative. Public Announcement. federal+transportation+bill 22 Dec 2009. Accessed 20 Dec 2011. Available http://www07.grants.gov/ 50 Federal Highway Administration Guidance. Bicycle and Pedestrian search/search.do?oppId=50811&mode=VIEW Provisions of Federal Transportation Legislation. Accessed 10 November 34 Louisiana Local Public Agency Manual General Information. June 2011. 2011. Available http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bp-guid. page 28 htm http://www.dotd.la.gov/administration/lpa/documents/LPA_Final_ 51 Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Bike Sharing Systems Aren’t Trying to Peddle for Manual_06-2011.pdf Profit.” US News and World Report. 17 April 2012. Available: http://www. 35 Fiscal Year 2011 Federally Obligated Projects. Regional Planning usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/17/bike-sharing-systems-arent- Commission. New Orleans. 2012. http://www.norpc.org/assets/pdf- trying-to-peddle-for-profit documents/FY11_Obligated_Proj_List.pdf 52 The Regional Planning Commission, the United States Geological Survey 36 Boston to launch bike share program. Boston.com 21 April 2011. Accessed (USGS), the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation in Cooperation with 22 Dec 2011. Available www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/ the U. S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center and the articles/2011/04/21/boston_to_launch_bike_share_program/ National GAP Program and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 37 Robertson, Jessica. Transportation Coordinator, Metropolitan Area and Louisiana State University, compiled in 1998. Source data from Planning Council. Phone Interview. 10 Nov 2011 1988 through 1995. Mosaic, subset and legend by the Regional Planning 38 “Deco Bike Rentals: Good For Locals, Not So Much For Visitors.” 29 August Commission, February, 2001. 2011. Miami Beach 411. Accessed 23 Dec 2011. Available http://www. 53 Mok, Kimberley. “Massive Theft, Vandalism Plaguing Parisian Bike Sharing miamibeach411.com/news/deco-bike-rentals Program.” Tree Hugger. 11 Feb 2009. Accessed 12 Dec 2011. Available: 39 Sohn, Amara. “Miami Beach Launches Bike-Sharing Program.” NBC http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/massive-theft-vandalism-plaguing- Miami. 15 April 2011. Accessed 23 Dec 2011. Available http://www. parisian-bike-sharing-program.html nbcmiami.com/news/local/Miami-Beach-Hoping-its-Launch-of-Bike- Sharing-Program-Takes-Off-118031414.html 40 Stein, Perry. “Miami Beach’s bicycle-sharing program struggling despite loyal riders.” 22 July 2011. Miami Herld. Accessed 23 Dec 2011. Available http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/23/v-fullstory/2331265/miami- beachs-bicycle-sharing-program.html 41 U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts. census.gov/qfd/states/22/2255000.html Last Revised: Tuesday, 18-Oct- 2011 42 Reeder, Tyler. B-Cycle Customer Service Representative. Telephone Interview, 16 Nov 2011. 43 Smerd, Jeremy. “Finalists Chosen for NYC’s bike-share pilot.” Crain’s New York Business.com. 17 Mar 2011. Accessed 19 March 2012. Available http:// www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110317/FREE/110319879 44 Demaio, Paul and Jonathan Gifford. “Will Smart Bikes Succeed as Public Transportation in the United States?” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2004. Accessed 15 Jan 2012. Availble: http://nctr.usf.edu/jpt/ pdf/JPT%207-2%20DeMaio.pdf 45 Reeder, Tyler. B-Cycle Customer Service Representative. Telephone Interview, 16 Nov 2011. 46 Flusche, Darren. “The Economic Benefits of Bicycle Infrastructure Investments.” June 2009. League of American Bicyclists. Accessed 10 Oct 2011. Available http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/reports/pdfs/ economic_benefits_bicycle_infrastructure_report.pdf 47 Reeder, Tyler. B-Cycle Customer Service. Personal Interview 9 Nov 2011. 48 Lynch, PJ. Owner of New Orleans Bike Taxi, LLC. Personal Interview. 3 March 2012. 49 Szczepanski, Carolyn. “Big Victory for Biking and Walking in the

Senate.” 2 March 2012. Accessed 30 March 2012. Available http://

BICYCLE SHARE FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW ORLEANS • page 20